Apparently, Ricard Dawkins admitting that he is agnostic is news. Holy crap, who knew? [/sarcasm]

The Daily Mail Online has this breathtakingly stupid article titled: "'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic"

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This is NOT news. Not especially when the same book, The God Delusion, that propelled Prof. Dawkins to becoming the "world's most nototrious atheist" also has him describing himself as a 6.9 atheist on his own scale. So if anybody was stunned then it's obvious none of them knew what Prof. Dawkins actually said about himself.

Weak & Strong Atheism & Agnosticism: The atheist and agnostic can be distinguished further between weak and strong versions.

A weak atheist only rejects the theistic claim of the existence of god(s) while a strong atheist not only rejects but also makes a positive claim of the non-existence of god(s).

A strong agnostic holds the view that the knowledge about the existence of non-existence of god(s) is unobtainable. A weak agnostic holds the view that such knowledge have not been acquired but still possible to acquire.

These sub categories allow for what is the position of most atheists: weak agnostic weak atheist (the agnostic atheist). In general, atheists who ask for scientifically valid evidence for the existence of god(s) holds that position. Science do not have absolute knowledge; a position based on scientific evidence do not permit the strong position for either atheism or agnosticism.

This is also what Prof. Dawkins has indicated is his position. He
does not absolutely know there are no gods (weak agnosticism) and he
believes the evidence does not support the claim that there are god(s)
(weak atheism).

Referring to the scale used in the God Delusion, Prof. Dawkins melts the two scales together. This gives a skewed scale where only the two extreme ends (1 and 7) are the strong positions for theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism. The middle (4) is the agnostic who knows shit about probabilities. And everywhere in between is the weak positions. Prof Dawkins indicates that he's a 6.9 which means he's an agnostic atheist with such confidence that he borders on holding the strong position.

Okay. I mentioned it before: I don't actually think that harmony between religions is ever possible. Unless religions somehow stay completely outside social interactions, harmony will break soon or later.

Religions make assertions about the world. Different religions make contradictory assertions. These assertions inform the beliefs which in turn inform actions. Actions have consequences -- and in the case of actions based on opposing beliefs, the consequence is frequently conflict.

That's a simplified way of explaining why religious harmony is ultimately not possible unless all religions agree (in which case there is only one religion) or one religion takes over the world by brute force and silences all dissenting opinion. The third option is for everyone to recognize that all religions are false and skip requiring "religious harmony" altogether.

And now onto a little viewpoint published in the Straits Times (ST Forum online):

Religion'Learn to have an open, mature discussion without getting worked up.'

MR MICHAEL ANG: 'To strengthen racial harmony, Christian evangelists need a less intrusive method of spreading their message, while Singaporeans should learn to have an open, mature discussion of major religious differences without getting all worked up ('Christian group says sorry for remarks'; last Friday). Religious harmony can be better solidified, not through finding similarities among the major religions in Singapore but through understanding one another's deep doctrinal differences. As much as non-Christians should refrain from branding every form of Christian evangelism as undesirable proselytising, Christians should spread Christ's message without pestering non-believers to follow the religion. Such an evangelistic approach would, hopefully, help to reduce any disruption to Singapore's religious harmony.'

I can see how people may think that is fine and dandy. Sounds pleasant, doesn't it? A call for more or better religious harmony. So nice and sensible.

I actually think it's rather vacuous. Sorta missing the point a little as well.

Let's take a look line by line.

To strengthen racial harmony, Christian evangelists need a less intrusive method of spreading their message,

"Don't be a dick when spreading the word of god"; Sounds reasonable.

Might work with non-believers who believe in debate and discussion and would peacefully discuss about the evidence that bears on the question of whether your religion is true.

What about a religious believer who believes in his own religion being the one true religion, that non-believers are damned to hell and should ideally be killed if they so dare spread lies (false religions)?

Those are extreme of course. But what about those in between? Some may think it's okay but others might think it's plain offensive. Again, "harmony" is likely shattered.

while Singaporeans should learn to have an open, mature discussion of
major religious differences without getting all worked up.

This, I thought, downplayed what transpired. Perhaps there were some folks who got worked up because some Christians were proselytizing against Buddhists, but there are other opinions. I'm of the opinion that asserting that non-believers of your religion can't possibly be happy (expressed in the poster) is plain bigotry.

I don't care what religion or non-religion you belong to. If that's your position then you're an asshole. Even atheists don't claim religious people can't be happy because they're religious. Barring perhaps brain/emotion experts, who the fuck are you to say that?

Religious harmony can be better solidified, not through finding
similarities among the major religions in Singapore but through
understanding one another's deep doctrinal differences.

I'm not too sure what's this supposed to mean. Understanding differences? Probably. But you probably won't be religious as well then.

I submit that if one were to actually understand what and how differences between religious doctrines come about, one would deconvert and be an atheist. I doubt anyone who studies comparative religion would still proselytize for a single religion with evangelistic fervor.

As much as non-Christians should refrain from branding every form of Christian evangelism as undesirable proselytising,

Again, it's not the method that drew the attention, it's the message. Bigoted beliefs are undesirable regardless of the method used to spread.

Christians should spread Christ's message without pestering
non-believers to follow the religion. Such an evangelistic approach
would, hopefully, help to reduce any disruption to Singapore's religious
harmony.

Yea, sure. I'd like to see how that happens without evidence on any religion's side.

Until the majority of Singaporeans realize that there is and never was any evidence for any religion and therefore abandon their vacuous beliefs, I find it difficult to envision "religious harmony" with all the religions running around thinking that they have the truth.

Just a day after a photo of its poster spread virally over the social networks, the NUS Campus Crusade for Christ took the posters down and issued an apology. The Straits Times online article reports:

A Christian student group at the National University of Singapore (NUS) apologised on Thursday for making insensitive remarks about Buddhists and Muslims.

The NUS Campus Crusade for Christ, made up of 80 to 100 students, posted an apology on its Facebook page for remarks made on its website and on posters it put up on campus benches on Wednesday.

The university also apologised on Thursday. The Ministry of Home Affairs, which is looking into the incident, said that while people are free to propagate their religion, it should not be done by insulting or denigrating other religions.

The Christian group's posters promoting a mission trip to Thailand said that the country, known as The Land of Smiles, was actually 'a place of little true joy'.

We humbly apologize for the distress we have caused you through the poster of ours that has gone viral online. We recognize that our choice of words used should have been more sensitive and tactful. We acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and it is definitely not our intention to force anyone to believe in what we do.

We have since removed our posters and websites, and will be watchful of future actions. Thank you for your understanding and our deepest apologies again for the distress that this incident has caused you.

With sincere apologies,
On behalf of NUS Campus Crusade

What's the poster that caused this explosion of attention on intolerant/bigoted ideas? You can check it out here at YawningBread where there is too an article on this incident.

Now back to the apology. Notice the statement "We recognize that our choice of words used should have been more sensitive and tactful."? There is not an apology for the bigoted idea expressed in the poster. Rather it's apologizing for the tactless way in which it was phrased. Sweet, huh?

Yet, I would consider it typical or, at least, logical that a Christian would endorse the poster. After all, if you sincerely believe that your religion is the ONE TRUE religion and that you can only experience TRUE happiness by following that religion, then that IS what you would say to non-believers of your religion. To do otherwise would be being inconsistent.

But the thing is, it is a bigoted idea. So there you have all the other religionists jumping in to say that that is intolerant, insensitive or plain wrong. Liberal Christians jump in to say essentially "that's not what our religion is about".

Some people stated that freedom of religion allows for such offensive speech. Others say that religion or not, bigoted ideas are a no-no.

So how does this resolve in Singapore? Combine the two. You have the freedom to have those beliefs but you cannot express them (lest you cause a fracking riot or something).

That is why I have said before: Religious harmony in Singapore is not religions running happily through the green meadows but an uneasy roundtable where a wrong move by any one religion triggers a free for all; "Harmony" is a euphemism for begrudging tolerance here.

The former is what I suspect most people want (but I contend is impossible) but the latter is what Singapore produces. And that is unhealthy for our society -- we're simply waiting for disaster.

This is a wonderful 120 minutes of discussion and Q&A with Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss at the Origins Project, ASU (4 Feb 2012). Topics ranged from evolution to cosmology, science & science education, religion and politics.

TrustingDoubt has uploaded the seventh part of her God's Emotions series which explores Christian concepts of god using affective science.

Youtube Channel update
After updating the layout and phasing out the Favorites section of my Youtube Channel, a couple of new playlists has been added to organize some of the videos retained from the favorites "playlist".